Chairman says

[westhamfan]

http://www.whufc.com/articles/article.php?page_id=9272

"Carlos Tevez is a registered West Ham United player, contracted to the Club until June 2010.

"There is no agreement with West Ham United for Carlos Tevez to leave the Club and we expect him to return in time for next season's preparations.

"No decision on his future can be reached without the agreement of West Ham United."

Finally he's said something.... Legal team at the ready then?

[ATL_Iron]

http://www.whufc.com/articles/article.php?page_id=9272

"Carlos Tevez is a registered West Ham United player, contracted to the Club until June 2010.

"There is no agreement with West Ham United for Carlos Tevez to leave the Club and we expect him to return in time for next season's preparations.

"No decision on his future can be reached without the agreement of West Ham United."

Finally he's said something.... Legal team at the ready then?


What a mess

[hammermolder]

As much as i love Teves,this whole thing is starting to get on my nerves,maybe we should just say thanks for the help,but it's time to move on!!!

[Footstomper]

As much as i love Teves,this whole thing is starting to get on my nerves,maybe we should just say thanks for the help,but it's time to move on!!!

He's one of us. He's a bloody hero. He's contracted. He's loved, and if he wants to be immortal he should stay and get us in the Champions league. This is going to get dirty but I'm up for it. I wouldnt want to face the egg man in court

[hammer_scout51]

He's one of us. He's a bloody hero. He's contracted. He's loved, and if he wants to be immortal he should stay and get us in the Champions league. This is going to get dirty but I'm up for it. I wouldnt want to face the egg man in court


Or his partner the Walrus. I still think Tevez will end at a Man U unfortunately. I do however agree with everything you have said stomper. In fact i don't think Tevez and Rooney in the same team suite.

[lesliemoss]

I wish the League would state once and for all just what the technical details are between ownership and registration at this moment between West Ham, Tevez's agent and owners and anyone else who's involved! If he's to be transferred, let the League handle ALL the transaction details so that no-one can point fingers at the Hammers!

By now, there can surely be no doubts about the paperwork, who gets what share of any fees, who holds what contracts with whom, etc. etc. etc.!!!!!!

It's getting boring, but it does seem that he's going.....somewhere, sometime.

[haven]

He's one of us. He's a bloody hero. He's contracted. He's loved, and if he wants to be immortal he should stay and get us in the Champions league. This is going to get dirty but I'm up for it. I wouldnt want to face the egg man in court

I'm not sure it's really a matter of what happens substantively, but in what forum. I imagine that West Ham will end up paying KJ in some fashion. I'm truly interested to see how this will play out.

The argument that West Ham managed to, essentially, sign Tevez on a free because of a void transfer agreement is implausible, at best. Generally speaking, that would result in recission and restitution of benefits - if the contract truly was unenforceable. You don't get to keep the benefit and avoid paying restitution.

So, what are your options? What Sheffield United, of course, would like West Ham to admit is that KJ never relinquished an interest in Tevez. That'll never happen.

The most realistic scenario seems to be that West Ham will maintain registration of the player, but that KJ will have a valid breach of contract claim. By ripping up the contract, West Ham may have severed KJ's rights - but in doing so, West Ham is liable. And from there, it's just a matter of measuring the damages (which would likely be a healthy chunk of any transfer fee).

So, what does the PL make of it? No matter what happens, it's a messy business. Of course, if West Ham either don't receive the bulk of the transfer fee - or pass a substantial portion of it along - it will appear that Tevez should never have been cleared to play again for West Ham. So, possibly, West Ham might find themselves in the position of making a borderline untenable argument just for the sake of posture.

As a West Ham supporter, do you see any other possibilities? What would you like the club to contend?

[Hawaiian Hammer]

I'm not sure it's really a matter of what happens substantively, but in what forum. I imagine that West Ham will end up paying KJ in some fashion. I'm truly interested to see how this will play out.

The argument that West Ham managed to, essentially, sign Tevez on a free because of a void transfer agreement is implausible, at best. Generally speaking, that would result in recission and restitution of benefits - if the contract truly was unenforceable. You don't get to keep the benefit and avoid paying restitution.

So, what are your options? What Sheffield United, of course, would like West Ham to admit is that KJ never relinquished an interest in Tevez. That'll never happen.

The most realistic scenario seems to be that West Ham will maintain registration of the player, but that KJ will have a valid breach of contract claim. By ripping up the contract, West Ham may have severed KJ's rights - but in doing so, West Ham is liable. And from there, it's just a matter of measuring the damages (which would likely be a healthy chunk of any transfer fee).

So, what does the PL make of it? No matter what happens, it's a messy business. Of course, if West Ham either don't receive the bulk of the transfer fee - or pass a substantial portion of it along - it will appear that Tevez should never have been cleared to play again for West Ham. So, possibly, West Ham might find themselves in the position of making a borderline untenable argument just for the sake of posture.

As a West Ham supporter, do you see any other possibilities? What would you like the club to contend?


As messy as all this has become, I still can't see why Tevez's transfer (which I do not believe will happen) cannot be done the same way as Masher's to Liverpool. There were no objections from the league over that.

There is nothing in the Man Utd rumor, Tevez himself has said nothing is to be decided until after the Copa and as soon as I read "The Daily Mail has spoken to Tevez" I knew it was all a load of BS, that rag more than any other has linked Tevez with any club they can.

Tevez is registered to West Ham, Eggy has said he is staying at West Ham, he has not put in a transfer request, he is not going anywhere at the moment.

[RealMadGunner]

What a mess

Yeah .. Just what i was thinking .. Now assuming the transfer doesn't go through, will Tevez be the same player who played the 2nd half of the season ?! I have my doubts ..

[northbankbar]

And from there, it's just a matter of measuring the damages

5 1/2 million quid anyone?

[Footstomper]

I'm not sure it's really a matter of what happens substantively, but in what forum. I imagine that West Ham will end up paying KJ in some fashion. I'm truly interested to see how this will play out.

The argument that West Ham managed to, essentially, sign Tevez on a free because of a void transfer agreement is implausible, at best. Generally speaking, that would result in recission and restitution of benefits - if the contract truly was unenforceable. You don't get to keep the benefit and avoid paying restitution.

So, what are your options? What Sheffield United, of course, would like West Ham to admit is that KJ never relinquished an interest in Tevez. That'll never happen.

The most realistic scenario seems to be that West Ham will maintain registration of the player, but that KJ will have a valid breach of contract claim. By ripping up the contract, West Ham may have severed KJ's rights - but in doing so, West Ham is liable. And from there, it's just a matter of measuring the damages (which would likely be a healthy chunk of any transfer fee).

So, what does the PL make of it? No matter what happens, it's a messy business. Of course, if West Ham either don't receive the bulk of the transfer fee - or pass a substantial portion of it along - it will appear that Tevez should never have been cleared to play again for West Ham. So, possibly, West Ham might find themselves in the position of making a borderline untenable argument just for the sake of posture.

As a West Ham supporter, do you see any other possibilities? What would you like the club to contend?
OK, I'm not entirely dim, but I have no clue what your first two paragraphs mean. You're writing in legalese which I'm sure is appropriate but I need a translation.
As far as I understand it (for what its worth)
The first contract breached EPL rules and was torn up.
Kia whatsisface maintains he owns the player.
Eggy maintains that he is contracted to WHU til 2010, he has been repeating this like a self absorbed Dalek since March.
EPL agree with Eggy, otherwise they have allowed a 3rd party to continue owning a player.
Its going to get dirty(er)
It seems to me that the egg man has a pretty water tight case.
I just feel sorry for Carlitos.

[ATL_Iron]

The way i see it is this:

For starters i want Tevez to go. He is an amazing player, but he is not worth having the crook Kia associated with the club, the quicker we are shot of both the better. Good luck Man U along those lines.

The PL wants to make sure that the transfer is in the best interests of West Ham, as per a usual transfer. So it confirms no 3rd part influence.

Eggy is pissed because Kia has 2 prices for Tevez. One for West ham and one for everyone else. Eggy probably also wants his 5.5m back.

The transfer will not happen unless West Ham agree to it, a court case will drag on and not be in the best interests of anyone. I think if Man U really want him they will end up having to up the money to say 10million. Of which it will all goto West Ham and then a conveint out of court settlement with MSI for say 4.5m?

[haven]

OK, I'm not entirely dim, but I have no clue what your first two paragraphs mean. You're writing in legalese which I'm sure is appropriate but I need a translation.
As far as I understand it (for what its worth)
The first contract breached EPL rules and was torn up.
Kia whatsisface maintains he owns the player.
Eggy maintains that he is contracted to WHU til 2010, he has been repeating this like a self absorbed Dalek since March.
EPL agree with Eggy, otherwise they have allowed a 3rd party to continue owning a player.
Its going to get dirty(er)
It seems to me that the egg man has a pretty water tight case.
I just feel sorry for Carlitos.

Ok, here we go:

(1) The "forum" issue - I think that the outcome of all of this is fairly predetermined - West Ham will end up paying KJ some money. How it happens, that's a different matter. Not sure if it will end up in court or via a transfer agreement. West Ham will do whatever the PL wants on this front, even if they end up fighting a sure loser of a court case.

(2) Doesn't matter what the EPL thinks, really, as far as whether West Ham ends up owing KJ a huge chunk of money. The issue is legal as well as sporting. KJ has a remedy in the courts.

To try to remove the legalese, it goes like this (based on public info, at least). West Ham and KJ signed a contract - an agreement. West Ham received the rights to the player's registration - Tevez therefore plays football for West Ham. KJ retained his economic rights - the rights to sell the player and make money off of him. West Ham tore up the agreement about his economic rights because the PL said it was illegal. So, the Egg says that Tevez has a contract and is registered until 2010.

He's right - but that's not the whole story. You can't just rip up an agreement and not face consequences. When you "rescind" or "repudiate" a contract by ripping it up, you're liable to- or owe - the other party. After that, it's really just a measure of damages because the "breach" of the contract is clear.

One measures of damages would be complete recission of the contract. That means that each party goes back to the way things were before after paying restitution for any benefits received. Tevez goes back to KJ.

Another would be damages, if the contract is breached but not rescinded. That means you pay KJ a chunk of cash.

When Eggert says that West Ham hold Tevez's registration for 3 more years - it's possible he's right, as far as the document is concerned. The issue, though, is what KJ gets because West Ham violated the agreement.

It doesn't even matter if the agreement is unenforceable because it was illegal - KJ is still entitled to restitution, just not damages, in that case. In which case - no Tevez for West Ham.

As I said, I find this to be a very interesting case. The PL created a good deal of the mess itself.

*Keep in mind I'm an American, but our contract law is very, very similar, and this is basic stuff.

[Hawaiian Hammer]

Ok, here we go:


(2) Doesn't matter what the EPL thinks, really, as far as whether West Ham ends up owing KJ a huge chunk of money. The issue is legal as well as sporting. KJ has a remedy in the courts.

To try to remove the legalese, it goes like this (based on public info, at least). West Ham and KJ signed a contract - an agreement. West Ham received the rights to the player's registration - Tevez therefore plays football for West Ham. KJ retained his economic rights - the rights to sell the player and make money off of him. West Ham tore up the agreement about his economic rights because the PL said it was illegal. So, the Egg says that Tevez has a contract and is registered until 2010.

He's right - but that's not the whole story. You can't just rip up an agreement and not face consequences. When you "rescind" or "repudiate" a contract by ripping it up, you're liable to- or owe - the other party. After that, it's really just a measure of damages because the "breach" of the contract is clear.



If the agreement about his legal rights is illegal then surely West Ham can rip up the agreement because it is effectively null and void. Can't see KJ being able to profit from an illegal agreement in a court of law, it seems he has shot himself in the foot.

[Footstomper]

Ok, here we go:

(1) The "forum" issue - I think that the outcome of all of this is fairly predetermined - West Ham will end up paying KJ some money. How it happens, that's a different matter. Not sure if it will end up in court or via a transfer agreement. West Ham will do whatever the PL wants on this front, even if they end up fighting a sure loser of a court case.

(2) Doesn't matter what the EPL thinks, really, as far as whether West Ham ends up owing KJ a huge chunk of money. The issue is legal as well as sporting. KJ has a remedy in the courts.

To try to remove the legalese, it goes like this (based on public info, at least). West Ham and KJ signed a contract - an agreement. West Ham received the rights to the player's registration - Tevez therefore plays football for West Ham. KJ retained his economic rights - the rights to sell the player and make money off of him. West Ham tore up the agreement about his economic rights because the PL said it was illegal. So, the Egg says that Tevez has a contract and is registered until 2010.

He's right - but that's not the whole story. You can't just rip up an agreement and not face consequences. When you "rescind" or "repudiate" a contract by ripping it up, you're liable to- or owe - the other party. After that, it's really just a measure of damages because the "breach" of the contract is clear.

One measures of damages would be complete recission of the contract. That means that each party goes back to the way things were before after paying restitution for any benefits received. Tevez goes back to KJ.

Another would be damages, if the contract is breached but not rescinded. That means you pay KJ a chunk of cash.

When Eggert says that West Ham hold Tevez's registration for 3 more years - it's possible he's right, as far as the document is concerned. The issue, though, is what KJ gets because West Ham violated the agreement.

It doesn't even matter if the agreement is unenforceable because it was illegal - KJ is still entitled to restitution, just not damages, in that case. In which case - no Tevez for West Ham.

As I said, I find this to be a very interesting case. The PL created a good deal of the mess itself.

*Keep in mind I'm an American, but our contract law is very, very similar, and this is basic stuff.

Jesus this needs some tinking and I'll come back when I'm thunk. But if the original contract was illegal?......

[haven]

Hawaian Hammer and Footstomper:

If the contract is illegal, that means it's void or voidable. But you just don't walk away with whatever benefit you received. If a contract is void or voidable, essentially, the parties go back to their pre-contract positions. And if you've conferred a benefit, no matter how illegal the contract itself was, then you still get the restitution value of the benefit conferred. You just don't get the value of the contract itself.

What would that mean in this case? Well, since we go back to the state of affairs before the contract - West Ham would lose Tevez's registration and would pay the reasonable value of Tevez's services for one year as measured by the court. EDIT: Whatever West Ham owed KJ might be counterbalanced by Tevez's increase in value due to him playing for West Ham and improving his reputation.

I don't think this will actually happen - it's better for everyone is a settlement can be reached. The PL just has to play ball to make this easier for everyone.

But, really, the argument that because the agreement for KJ to retain the economic rights was unenforceable, West Ham get to keep Tevez and not pay KJ anything is a legal nonstarter. IF that's what the PL wants to happen, well, KJ will just turn to the court system for his remedy. And that would be bad. For KJ, for West Ham, and for Manchester United (would effectively render any transfer impossible for the immediate future).

[ATL_Iron]

West Ham tore up the agreement about his economic rights because the PL said it was illegal. So, the Egg says that Tevez has a contract and is registered until 2010.




Your wrong there Haven, KJ still owns the economic rights, that has never been brought into question.
The problem lies in the fact that the agreement that KJ could sell Tevez has been torn up, and the PL has stated that is was not a legal contract in the country anyway.
This is where the problem lies, KJ would still get the the money for Tevez and the PL has no problem with that, as long as its in 2010.
This is where KJ's really is in a mess. Because he did not foresee this issue it leave both parties in a real predicament. West Ham could give KJ permission to sell and hand over the registration and receive no money for that transaction, Then however the PL has stated that no one in their right mind mind will give up such an asset for free, and thus proving the 3rd party "influence" exists, and us getting in a heap of trouble.

The "Irony" is that KJ and Brown got into this illegal, unenforceable agreement, and the outcome is that KJ has ended up with the situation of giving West Ham essentially a free loan of the player. Until a court rules we have to give up the registration, and that according to the PL is unlikely.

[haven]

Your wrong there Haven, KJ still owns the economic rights, that has never been brought into question.
The problem lies in the fact that the agreement that KJ could sell Tevez has been torn up, and the PL has stated that is was not a legal contract in the country anyway.
This is where the problem lies, KJ would still get the the money for Tevez and the PL has no problem with that, as long as its in 2010.
This is where KJ's really is in a mess. Because he did not foresee this issue it leave both parties in a real predicament. West Ham could give KJ permission to sell and hand over the registration and receive no money for that transaction, Then however the PL has stated that no one in their right mind mind will give up such an asset for free, and thus proving the 3rd party "influence" exists, and us getting in a heap of trouble.

The "Irony" is that KJ and Brown got into this illegal, unenforceable agreement, and the outcome is that KJ has ended up with the situation of giving West Ham essentially a free loan of the player. Until a court rules we have to give up the registration, and that according to the PL is unlikely.

That's really wishful thinking. The problem that you can't escape is that by ripping up an agreement, West Ham either committed:

(a) recission; or
(b) breach.

Either way, they're going to be liable to KJ for (a) restitution or (b) damages. You can't escape that. If they concede KJ still owns Tevez's economic rights, they still can't escape the value of whatever contractual right they violated. It doesn't matter if that part of the contract was illegal or collateral. KJ will get his remedy in court.

And it doesn't matter what the PL thinks in terms of the legal remedy. It's irrelevant as far as the courts are concerned. If the PL sides with West Ham, KJ will just sue in court.

The most recent arbitration panel phrased West Ham's position as legally "not water tight." Do you really want this to be settled in court? A settlement would really be better. The only reason to go to court, where West Ham will probably lose, is if doing otherwise would render West Ham's position w/the PL untenable. And that may be what will happen.

West Ham isn't going to get something for nothing here. I'm sure the Egg knows it, but he has to hold his legal posture for now.

EDIT: I will say this, I'm very nervous about Man Utd entering into any agreement regarding this matter. At first, when I heard the Tevez news, I was excited despite some concerns about position. The more the KJ/WH saga drags on, though, the more I wonder if it is going to be possible for a deal to occur that doesn't make me uncomfortable. Even if Tevez goes elsewhere, though, I'm eager to see how this turns out.

[Footstomper]

Ok, here we go:

(1) The "forum" issue - I think that the outcome of all of this is fairly predetermined - West Ham will end up paying KJ some money. How it happens, that's a different matter. Not sure if it will end up in court or via a transfer agreement. West Ham will do whatever the PL wants on this front, even if they end up fighting a sure loser of a court case.

(2) Doesn't matter what the EPL thinks, really, as far as whether West Ham ends up owing KJ a huge chunk of money. The issue is legal as well as sporting. KJ has a remedy in the courts.

To try to remove the legalese, it goes like this (based on public info, at least). West Ham and KJ signed a contract - an agreement. West Ham received the rights to the player's registration - Tevez therefore plays football for West Ham. KJ retained his economic rights - the rights to sell the player and make money off of him. West Ham tore up the agreement about his economic rights because the PL said it was illegal. So, the Egg says that Tevez has a contract and is registered until 2010.

He's right - but that's not the whole story. You can't just rip up an agreement and not face consequences. When you "rescind" or "repudiate" a contract by ripping it up, you're liable to- or owe - the other party. After that, it's really just a measure of damages because the "breach" of the contract is clear.

One measures of damages would be complete recission of the contract. That means that each party goes back to the way things were before after paying restitution for any benefits received. Tevez goes back to KJ.

Another would be damages, if the contract is breached but not rescinded. That means you pay KJ a chunk of cash.

When Eggert says that West Ham hold Tevez's registration for 3 more years - it's possible he's right, as far as the document is concerned. The issue, though, is what KJ gets because West Ham violated the agreement.

It doesn't even matter if the agreement is unenforceable because it was illegal - KJ is still entitled to restitution, just not damages, in that case. In which case - no Tevez for West Ham.

As I said, I find this to be a very interesting case. The PL created a good deal of the mess itself.

*Keep in mind I'm an American, but our contract law is very, very similar, and this is basic stuff.

That's really wishful thinking. The problem that you can't escape is that by ripping up an agreement, West Ham either committed:

(a) recission; or
(b) breach.

Either way, they're going to be liable to KJ for (a) restitution or (b) damages. You can't escape that. If they concede KJ still owns Tevez's economic rights, they still can't escape the value of whatever contractual right they violated. It doesn't matter if that part of the contract was illegal or collateral. KJ will get his remedy in court.

And it doesn't matter what the PL thinks in terms of the legal remedy. It's irrelevant as far as the courts are concerned. If the PL sides with West Ham, KJ will just sue in court.

The most recent arbitration panel phrased West Ham's position as legally "not water tight." Do you really want this to be settled in court? A settlement would really be better. The only reason to go to court, where West Ham will probably lose, is if doing otherwise would render West Ham's position w/the PL untenable. And that may be what will happen.

West Ham isn't going to get something for nothing here. I'm sure the Egg knows it, but he has to hold his legal posture for now.

Define recission. I'm a historian and I speak latin and I still have no idea what it means. re-cutting? I still have no clue:o

[haven]

Define recission. I'm a historian and I speak latin and I still have no idea what it means. re-cutting? I still have no clue:o

Just means you literally rip up the contract and say it never happened. Kind of like an annulment instead of a divorce. The goal, at that point, is to put both sides in "as good of a position as if the contract had never been entered into." You try to return the value of all benefits conferred and the parties go along their merry ways as if the contract never existed.

Very basic example: Say that Albert is going to build Bob a house made out of Italian granite and a gazebo. After Albert has completed the gazebo, the world's supply of Italian granite dries up. It's completely impossible to build the house at that point, so Albert can't complete his performance on the contract. But because it's not really his fault, the court would probably just permit recission.

But what about the gazebo? Well, Albert can't get the contract price, because recission has occurred. But he can still get the value that he's added to Bob's property, which would be measured by the market price of Bob's property before and after the Gazebo was built. Or, alternately, by the value of Bob's labor and supplies. It's essentially a remedy to prevent one side from receiving a windfall despite a recission or unenforceable contract.